Bradley v. Sudler
| Decision Date | 11 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 38857,38857 |
| Citation | 255 P.2d 650,174 Kan. 293 |
| Parties | BRADLEY v. SUDLER |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The record in an action filed in the district court of the fourth judicial district by counsel from another state, without complying with the provisions of G.S.1949, 7-104, relative to associate counsel who resides and maintains his law office within the judicial district in which the action is filed or pending, examined, considered and held, defendant's motion to strike the petition and all proceedings in the case should have been sustained following Bradley v. Sudler, 172 Kan. 367, 239 P.2d 921.
Henry H. Asher, of Lawrence (C. M. Gorrill, Alan F. Asher and Richard A. Barber, all of Lawrence, on the briefs), for the appellant.
No appearance for the appellee.
The defendant appeals from an order overruling his motion to strike the petition and all proceedings in the case from the files.
This is the second chapter of an appeal in the same case. The appeal involves substantially the same legal question presented in the former appeal. Bradley v. Sudler, 172 Kan. 367, 239 P.2d 921, 922. We there said:
'The question involved concerns the jurisdiction of a court to entertain an action when the petition on file shows on its face that compliance with G.S.1949, 7-104, with reference to the association of local counsel, has not been made.
'The factual background of the matter is this:
'On January 24, 1951, plaintiff filed the action. His petition was signed:
We held:
'By the provisions of G.S.1949, 7-104, which require that 'any regularly admitted practicing attorney in the courts of record of another state' having professional business in the courts of this state shall have associated and personally appearing with him in such action or proceeding an attorney who is duly and regularly admitted to the practice of law in this state and who also resides and maintains his law office within the judicial district in which the action is filed or pending and that such fact shall be made to appear by a written showing filed therein, no court shall entertain any action or proceeding while the same is begun, carried on or maintained in violation thereof.
'The word 'entertain,' as used in the above-mentioned statute, means 'to receive and take into consideration.'
'In an appeal from an order overruling a motion to strike a petition the record is examined and it is held: (a) The petition showed on its face that it was filed by a 'foreign' attorney within the meaning of the above-mentioned statute, (b) that the requirements of the statute with reference to the association and personal appearance of local counsel had not been met, and (c) absent any written showing that compliance with the statute had been made the court had no jurisdiction to entertain or consider the petition and the motion to strike the same should have been sustained.' (Syl. 1, 2, 3.)
Following that decision the petition was changed only as to the amount of damages claimed. This petition now bears the names and addresses of the following attorneys:
'/s/ Thomas P. Downs
'Thomas P. Downs
'Attorney for Plaintiff
'912 Columbia Bank Bldg.
'Kansas City, Missouri
'Grand 7570
'/s/ Edward Rooney
'Edward Rooney
'New England Building
'Topeka, Kansas
'Attorney for Plaintiff'
Appellant's motion to strike the instant petition was again based on the ground the action was not shown to have been filed in conformity with the requirements of G.S.1949, 7-104. His motion further stated:
'Defendant shows to the Court that Thomas Paul Downs, the person who signed the Petition in this cause, resides in and has his office in the City of Kansas City, Missouri, and is a regularly admitted and practicing Attorney in the Courts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKenzie v. Burris
...move to strike a petition signed only by nonresident attorneys not admitted to practice in the state. See also Bradley v. Sudler, 172 Kan. 367, 239 P.2d 921 (1952); 174 Kan. 293, 255 P.2d 650 On the other hand, it has been held that if and when a nonresident attorney, not licensed to practi......
-
Smith, In re
...den., 368 U.S. 945, 82 S.Ct. 376, 7 L.Ed.2d 341 (1961); Bradley v. Sudler, 172 Kan. 367, 239 P.2d 921 (1952), later appeal, 174 Kan. 293, 255 P.2d 650 (1953); Arthaud v. Griffin, 202 Iowa 462, 210 N.W. 540 (1926); Annot., 45 A.L.R.2d 1065, § 2 (1956). It is a requirement our Court of Appeal......
-
Dyche v. Crawford, s. 41052
...Felton v. Rubow, 163 Kan. 82, 179 P.2d 935; Bradley v. Sudler, 172 Kan. 367, 239 P.2d 921; and the same case upon a second appeal, 174 Kan. 293, 255 P.2d 650. Able counsel for both sides readily concede that those decisions do not determine this case now before us. In those cases, the attor......
-
Thornburg v. McClelland
...those referred to above (Felton v. Rubow, 163 Kan. 82, 179 P.2d 935; Bradley v. Sudler, 172 Kan. 367, 239 P.2d 921; second appeal, 174 Kan. 293, 255 P.2d 650) in that at the time of the order striking the petitions from the files of the district court, counsel resident within the judicial d......